Cheverton Down Wind Farm, Shorwell, Isle of Wight

Wessex Archaeology

Ref: 71250.01

Cheverton Down Wind Farm,Shorwell, Isle of Wight

��

CHEVERTON DOWN WIND FARM SHORWELL

ISLE OF WIGHT

Archaeological Evaluation Report

prepared for CgMs Consulting

Morely House 26 Holborn Viaduct

LondonEC1A 2AT

byWessex Archaeology

Portway House Old Sarum Park

Salisbury SP4 6EB

Report reference: 71250.01

March 2009

© The Trust for Wessex Archaeology Limited 2009 all rights reserved The Trust for Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786


ISLE OF WIGHT


Contents

1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1

1.1. PROJECT BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................11.2. THE SITE: LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY..............................................................1

2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................2

2.1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................22.2. EARLY PREHISTORIC ..............................................................................................................22.3. BRONZE AGE..........................................................................................................................32.4. IRON AGE...............................................................................................................................32.5. ROMAN ..................................................................................................................................42.6. SAXON – EARLY MEDIEVAL...................................................................................................42.7. MEDIEVAL..............................................................................................................................42.8. POST-MEDIEVAL ....................................................................................................................52.9. UNDATED...............................................................................................................................5

3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................................5

3.1. GENERAL ...............................................................................................................................5

4. METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................6

4.1. FIELDWORK............................................................................................................................6

5. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................8

5.1. TRENCH 1...............................................................................................................................85.2. TRENCH 2...............................................................................................................................85.3. TRENCH 3...............................................................................................................................9

6. FINDS ..........................................................................................................................................10

7. ENVIRONMENTAL REMAINS ..............................................................................................10

7.1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................107.2. CHARRED PLANT REMAINS ..................................................................................................117.3. WOOD CHARCOAL ...............................................................................................................11

8. DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................................11

9. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................12

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................12

APPENDIX 1: TRENCH SUMMARIES ............................................................................................13

Figure 1 Site Location plan Figure 2 Trench plans showing geophysical features and survey results and archaeological features Plates 1 and 2 Plate 1 – Trench 2- Oven 213 before excation

Plate 2 – Trench 2 – Oven 213 after excavation

i


ISLE OF WIGHT


Summary

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by CGMS to undertake an archaeological evaluation of land on Cheverton Down, to the north-west of the village of Shorwell on the Isle of Wight, centred on National Grid Reference 444100, 084200 (hereafter the Site). Planning permission for three wind turbine generators with hub height of 80m and rotor diameter of 90m (tip height 125m) has been applied for. Following submission of the application, the Isle of Wight Council has requested further information on the possible archaeological impacts of the proposed wind farm in the form of evaluation trenching.

The evaluation trenches excavated on the proposed wind turbine locations identified a small number of archaeological features in addition to numerous geological anomalies and natural features.

The westernmost trench, Trench 1, contained no features associated with past human activity – the only non geological features were two undated tree throws. No anthropogenic material was recovered from this trench. The central trench, Trench 2, identified evidence for Roman activity, in the form of a shallow gully and an oven. Only small quantities of pottery were recovered, but fired clay and brick, along with the presence of the oven, point to some settlement in the vicinity. A third archaeological feature, possible an ovoid posthole, could not be closely dated.

Further Roman material was recovered from the eastern trench (Trench 3), where a shallow gully contained a number of sherds of Roman pottery in its only fill. The only other archaeological feature from within this trench is a small undated posthole. A tree throw, probable hedgeline and geological anomalies were also identified within this trench.

It is likely that any mitigation required will comprise a combination of targeted excavation and watching brief in appropriate areas.

ii


ISLE OF WIGHT


Acknowledgements

Wessex Archaeology is grateful to Rob Bourn of CGMS who commissioned the archaeological evaluation of land on Cheverton Down.

The assistance and advice of Owen Cambridge (County Archaeologist for the Isle of Wight), who monitored the works on behalf of the Local Planning Authority, is duly acknowledged.

Nicholas Cooke directed the excavation in the field, assisted by Darryl Freer. Nicholas Cooke wrote this report and the illustrations were prepared by Elizabeth James. Richard Greatorex managed the project for Wessex Archaeology and edited this report.

iii


ISLE OF WIGHT


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Project background

1.1.1. Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by CGMS to undertake an archaeological evaluation of land on Cheverton Down, to the north-west of the village of Shorwell on the Isle of Wight, centred on National Grid Reference (NGR) 444100. 084200 (hereafter the Site) (Figure 1).

1.1.2. Planning permission for three wind turbine generators with hub height of 80m and rotor diameter of 90m (tip height 125m) control building, access tracks, underground electrical cables and temporary construction compound has been applied for (TCP/21144/E, P/00021/09). Following submission of the application, the Isle of Wight Council has requested further information on the possible archaeological impacts of the proposed wind farm in the form of evaluation trenching.

1.1.3. A Specification for an Archaeological Evaluation was compiled by CGMS in March 2009, describing the archaeological potential for the area and outlining the proposed methodology for the trial trenching. A Geophysical survey was undertaken by Stratascan prior to the submission of an Environmental Statement in support of the application (Stratascan 2008). This identified some areas of possible archaeological potential.

1.1.4. The evaluation was undertaken in accordance with the standards originally specified by the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA 1999).

1.2. The Site: Location, Topography and Geology

1.2.1. The three proposed wind turbines lie to the north-west of the village of Shorwell on the Isle of Wight (Figure 1). They are spaced over some 800m, and located at roughly equal distances from each other on an East-West ridge known as Cheverton Down. Their proposed locations are situated just below an east west ridge at c. 180m OD. To the north, the land drops steeply into a deep valley c. 100m OD and then rises sharply to the north-eastern boundary of the Site to a height of c.190m OD. To the south, the ridge falls sharply to meet the coastal

1

plain. To the east, the land slopes away gradually, whilst the ridge continues for some distance to the west.

1.2.2. The British Geological Survey maps for the area (BGS Sheets 344 and 350) show that the solid geology of the Site comprises chalk in the form of the Lewes, Seaford, Newhaven, Culver and Portsdown Chalk Formations. These chalk deposits are overlain by deposits of clay with flints in the southern and western portions of the Site, with isolated pockets of sands and gravels.

2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

2.1. Introduction

2.1.1. A full discussion of the archaeology of the surrounding area can be found in the Specification for an Archaeological Evaluation (CGMS 2009). It is not proposed to repeat that information here. What follows is a brief summary of the results.

2.2. Early Prehistoric

2.2.1. A single Palaeolithic cordate axe was found within the Site during a fieldwalking survey. Elsewhere within the Site, a number of late Mesolithic-early Neolithic flint artefacts were recorded at Gallibury Fields, comprising an assemblage of flakes, scrapers, cores, a hammerstone, struck lumps, unclassified tools and burnt flint and three flint picks. This concentration of finds suggests a possible occupation site/activity area within the north-western corner of the Site, some 700m to the north of the proposed wind turbines.

2.2.2. Other late Mesolithic/early Neolithic flint artefacts from the Salt collection were also found within the Site. Their exact provenance is uncertain. Further afield, a Late Mesolithic-early occupation site has also been found in Shorwell, where an assemblage of 400 worked flints and 1200 flint flakes along with black earth deposits, charcoal and calcined flints were found, and a single flint pick has also been recorded to the east of Shorwell.

2.2.3. A possible Neolithic standing stone once lay close to the Site, being recorded as a ‘greate broade stone’ with a hole in it on the top of ‘Limerstone Shoote’ in a documentary source. No traces of this stone now remain, and its exact location is uncertain.

2.2.4. A Neolithic flint working site comprising flakes, cores, scrapers and blades has been recorded c. 600m to the south-west of the Site, whilst other finds within the area include the butt end of a polished axe, a transverse arrowhead to the south west of the site, a flint axe on Newbarn Down to the north, and a polished celt at Rowridge.

2

2.3. Bronze Age

2.3.1. There are a number of groups of Bronze Age barrows recorded, many of which are Scheduled Ancient Monuments within and immediately to the east of the Site on Cheverton Down and on Brightstone and Newbarn Down to the north east and north of the Site. The Cheverton Down barrow cemetery comprises 15 barrows arranged in an east-west alignment, with two possible outliers some 150m to the south. Six of the barrows are Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

2.3.2. A second barrow group lie to the east of the site on Dukem Down, and comprises the slight earthwork remains of two round barrows and three ring ditches. A single possible barrow is recorded at Coombe Farm c. 900m to the south-west

2.3.3. Two Bronze Age cremations have been recorded in the vicinity of the site – sherds of a cremation urn were found on Rowborough Down to the north east of the sit, whilst a possible cremation associated with a barbed and tanged arrowhead lay c. 600m to the south west.

2.3.4. The route of a Bronze Age trackway from Afton Down in the west of the Island to Brading Down toward the east of the Island crosses east-west to the north of the Site. A late Bronze hoard comprising ‘a great many swords, spears and other weapons’ is recorded as having been found to the north of the Site on Little Down.

2.4. Iron Age

2.4.1. The earthwork remains of a presumed Iron Age field system known as ‘Gallibury Fields field system’ are located within the Site. This is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM No 26842). It occupies a large area of the north facing slope of Cheverton Down and extends into the forested area on Rowborough Down.

2.4.2. An Iron Age village was once thought to have been located in the northern corner of the Site in Gallibury Fields. However, investigation has indicated that these comprise natural swallow holes rather than archaeological features.

2.4.3. A second suspected, but doubtful Iron Age village has been recorded on Newbarn Down to the west of the site. Elsewhere, Iron Age remains include fragments of pottery on Newbarn Farm. The exact location of the findspot is unknown.

2.4.4. A linear earthwork of unknown but presumed late prehistoric date has been recorded crossing north south across Limerstone Down. It has been suggested that may be a ‘cross-ridge dyke’. Roman artefacts have been recovered from it and so it is possible that it may be of Roman not Iron Age date.

3

2.5. Roman

2.5.1. Sherds of Roman pottery and a single Roman coin are recorded within the western end of the Site. A further Roman coin has also been recorded within the Site on Fore Down. Roman pottery has been recovered from a linear earthwork on Limerstone Down alongside a possible post hole and a line of rocks which may represent the remains of a possible wooden hut.

2.5.2. The scheduled remains of Rock Roman villa are located c. 1.4km to the west of the Site (SAM No 22002). This is a corridor type villa located on a south-east facing slope. A Roman field system to the west of the Site is thought to be associated with the Roman villa at Rock. There are no indications that this field system extends as far east as the Site.

2.5.3. Roman finds comprising mainly pottery or coins have been recorded in various locations within 1.5km radius of the Site – pottery from North Court Farm, a coin to the north of Rowborough Farm, a coin on Brighstone Down, a coin at Coombe Farm and a coin on North Court Down.

2.6. Saxon – Early Medieval

2.6.1. There are no Saxon remains recorded within the Site. However, an earthwork enclosure is located in Brighstone Forest c. 100m to the north of the northern corner of the Site which is thought to be the Saxon moot place that was mentioned in a bounds of Calbourne in 826AD. This enclosure is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. It comprises a low ditch and bank which has been planted with trees. The enclosure is likely to have been used as a pastoral enclosure in later periods.

2.6.2. Saxon funerary urns have been recorded on Rowborough Down to the north of the Site. The exact provenance of this find is unknown. Further funerary urns have also been recorded on Fore Down to the south of the Site.

2.7. Medieval

2.7.1. The only medieval evidence recorded within the Site is a linear earthwork within the centre part of the Site. This is likely to be a field boundary. Cheverton was recorded as Cevredone in the Domesday Book – relating to Cheverton Farm at the eastern end of the Site.

2.7.2. Shorwell is first mentioned in Domesday as being Sorewelle. North Court (the manor of North Shorwell) and the manor of West Court or South Shorwell were both referred to in Doomsday. The Church of St Peter’s in Shorwell has 12th century origins.

4

2.7.3. There is a 14th century reference to a Chapel at Limerstone Farm. A field nearby to Limerstone Farm is called ‘Monkshill’, possibly referring to this chapel. A stone coffin recorded near to the Farm may also be associated with this chapel. An iron spearhead has also been recovered from at Limerstone Farm.

2.7.4. Further afield, Coombe was referred to as Seutocombe in Domesday. Coombe Tower may mark the Site of a beacon mentioned in a 13th

century document as at ‘Lawyrde’. Other beacons are recorded at ‘Leukedone’ in 1324 and in 1638 at Lardon Down to the south-east of the Site.

2.8. Post-Medieval

2.8.1. There are no post-medieval remains recorded within the Site. Various records of post-medieval remains/structures in the vicinity of the Site relate to places such as Shorwell but have no direct bearing on the site and therefore will not be repeated here.

2.9. Undated

2.9.1. A small group of earthworks comprising rectilinear ditches, banks and possible hollow ways have been recorded to the north of the Site at Slocum Copse which has been interpreted as the remains of a possible occupation site and possible field system of an unknown date. These earthworks do not extend into the Site. An undated field system has also been recorded on Rowborough Down which may be related to this possible occupation site.

2.9.2. Cropmarks of linear features have been recorded to the east of the Site. There are a number of undated earthwork linear features recorded with Brighstone Forest to west and north-west of the Site. Further linear cropmarks of have also been recorded on Newbarn Down, near Limerstone Farm and on Dukem Down. These may be the remains of late prehistoric/Roman field systems or woodland banks or a combination of both. There is no evidence that these remains extend into the Site.

2.9.3. Other undated features recorded within 1.5km of the Site are a quarry in Shorwell; a lynchet to the west of Shorwell, a mound and sub-circular earthwork at Coombe Farm, a mound on Idlecombe Down ), a lynchet on Renham Down, a crop mark of possible pits south of Cheverton and a circular soil mark east of Rancombe.

3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

3.1. General

3.1.1. The aims of the archaeological evaluation were set out in the Specification for an Archaeological Evaluation (CGMS 2009). In general, the of the archaeological evaluation was to establish within

5

the constraints of the sampling strategy, the presence/absence, location, extent, date, character, condition, complexity, significance and quality of any surviving archaeological remains within the development footprint. Additionally the evaluation was intended to assess the potential of the Site to provide palaeo-environmental and/or economic evidence of past human activities.

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1. Fieldwork

4.1.1. The trench specifications were set out in the Specification for an Archaeological Evaluation (CGMS 2009). Each of the three proposed turbine locations was targeted by two intersecting 50m long evaluation trenches in the form of a cross targeted on each proposed turbine location. The evaluation was undertaken between March 9 and March 13 2009.

th

th

Trial trenching 4.1.2. All trenches were marked out on the ground prior to the

commencement of work and located relative to OS grid. Topsoil and overburden were removed using a JCB backhoe loader fitted with a toothless bucket, working under the continuous direct supervision of a suitably experienced archaeologist. Spoil was stockpiled at a safe distance from the edge of trenches, with topsoil and subsoil stockpiled separately.

4.1.3. Topsoil and modern overburden were removed in a series of level spits down to the top of the first significant archaeological horizon. After excavation, all trenches were carefully backfilled on completion using excavated material in accordance with best practice, but not otherwise reinstated.

Excavation and recording 4.1.4. All archaeological and potentially archaeological features exposed in

trial trenches and test pits were cleaned by hand and recorded in plan at an appropriate scale. Sufficient of the features located in each trench were investigated by hand in order to fulfil the aims of the project.

4.1.5. All archaeological features and deposits encountered were recorded using pro forma recording sheets and a continuous unique numbering system. Plans at appropriate scales were prepared, showing the areas investigated and their relation to more permanent topographical features. The plans show the location of contexts observed and recorded in the course of the investigation. Other plans, sections and elevations of archaeological features and deposits were drawn as necessary at 1:10 and 1:20 as appropriate. All drawings were be made in pencil on permanent drafting film. At least one long section in

6

each trench was cleaned by hand and recorded at an appropriate scale.

4.1.6. The spot height of all principal features and levels was calculated in metres relative to Ordnance Datum, correct to two decimal places. Plans, sections and elevations were annotated with spot heights as appropriate.

4.1.7. Photographs were taken as necessary to produce a photographic record consisting of monochrome prints and colour transparencies. Digital images were also taken to support report preparation.

Finds collection 4.1.8. All finds were recorded by context. All recovered objects were

retained unless they are undoubtedly of modern or recent origin. The presence of modern objects was, however, noted on context records. In these circumstances sufficient material was retained to elucidate the date and function of the deposit from which it was recovered.

Finds treatment 4.1.9. All finds were processed in accordance with the Institute of Field

Archaeologists’ Standard and Guidance for Finds Work. All artefacts were, as a minimum, washed, marked, counted, weighed and identified.

Environmental sampling and processing 4.1.10. The environmental sampling strategy followed the guidance set out in

Environmental Archaeology: a guide to the theory and practice of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation (EnglishHeritage 2002). A single bulk sample, representing a 100% sample was taken.

4.1.11. This bulk samples was processed by standard flotation methods. Flots were retained on a 0.25mm mesh and the residues fractionated into 4mm, 2mm, 1mm and 0.5mm fractions, and dried. The coarse fractions (>4mm) were sorted, weighed and discarded; any artefacts or animal bone extracted and retained. The flots were scanned under a x10 - x30 stereo-binocular microscope and the presence of charred remains quantified, to record the preservation and nature of the charred plant and charcoal remains.

4.1.12. Sub-samples of 1-5 litres were taken from waterlogged deposits and processed for the recovery of waterlogged plant and insect remains. Laboratory flotation was undertaken with flots retained on a 0.25mm mesh and residues on a 0.5mm mesh. Residues and flots were stored in sealed containers with Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS). The larger fraction (>5.6mm) was sorted, weighed and discarded. The flots were visually inspected under a x10 to x40 stereo-binocular microscope to determine if waterlogged material occurred. Where waterlogged material was present, preliminary identifications of dominant taxa, were conducted.

7

5. RESULTS

5.1. Trench 1.

5.1.1. There were no significant changes to the location of Trench 1, which was designed to investigate the westernmost of the three wind turbines. Excavation revealed that the topsoil (100) sealed a thin subsoil (102) in places, which in turn sealed the natural geology (103), a yellow brown silt/clay containing numerous darker bands of mid to dark brown silty clay on a common north-west/south-east alignment. These closely mirror a series of anomalies recorded in the geophysical survey, interpreted as likely to represent either traces of agricultural activity or geological features. Given the nature of these features as exposed, and the prevailing direction of slope, a geological origin would seem the more likely.

5.1.2. Two features were investigated and recorded in this trench – features 105 and 107. In both cases their irregular nature and the nature of the deposits which had formed within them suggested that these were natural features, either representing tree boles or tree throws. None of the fills of either feature contained any anthropogenic material.

5.1.3. No archaeological features were identified in Trench 1 which could shed any light on past human activity in the landscape.

5.2. Trench 2.

5.2.1. Trench 2 was targeted on the location of the central of the three proposed wind turbines. Although the centrepoint of this trench still investigated the proposed turbine, the north-south arm of the trench was shifted further to the north to avoid a deep modern pit, dug close to the southern edge of the trench. This allowed a representative sample of the area to be investigated, including the site of the proposed turbine.

5.2.2. Across much of this trench, the modern ploughsoil (201) directly overlay the underlying geology (layer 203, a yellow/brown to yellow silt/clay containing frequent small and medium angular flint gravels. Across the eastern end of the eastern arm, however, a band of subsoil was identified (202), sealed by the ploughsoil and overlying the natural geology. In order to investigate this further, the trench was widened at this point and a section of the deposit excavated by machine. This revealed that the deposit lay within a relatively shallow natural hollow in the upper surface of the underlying geology. anthropogenic material was recovered from this deposit, and it is assumed that it was naturally accumulated.

5.2.3. Three archaeological features were identified within the trench. The northernmost of these, 205 was a shallow gully, aligned roughly west to east, located in the northern arm of the trench. This had regular moderately steep sides and an irregular stepped base. This gully was

8

filled with a single slowly accumulated secondary fill (204). Pottery and fired clay were recovered from this deposit. The former comprises two sherds of Roman coarseware pottery, whilst the latter is probably structural in origin.

5.2.4. To the south of this, also within the northern arm of the trench, lay a small oven or furnace. This comprised a shallow bowl shaped cut with a flue to the north-east. The lowest fill of this oven, layer 212, was a this charcoal rich layer of in situ burning, and was environmentally sampled. This was sealed by a clay layer, possibly representing a rebuild of the oven (211), which was in turn sealed by a charcoal rich mixed deposit (210), possibly derived from the last use of the oven. A layer of fired clay (209), probably representing the collapsed superstructure of the oven, sealed this deposit. The upper fills of the cut (206, 207 and 208) comprise dumps of material, some charcoal rich, used to backfill the feature after it went out of use. Fired clay and a piece of Roman brick were recovered from the fills of this feature.

5.2.5. The third feature investigated within the trench was a small ovoid pit (215) containing a single fill (214), a relatively slowly formed secondary fill containing no anthropogenic material. The function of this feature is uncertain, although it may have been a posthole.

5.3. Trench 3

5.3.1. Trench 3 was targeted on the location of the eastern-most of the three turbines, it lay a short distance to the north of two known Bronze Age barrows, which survive as low mounds. Although the centre point of this trench remained unaltered from that intended, both the north-south and east-west arms of the trench had to be extended (to the south and east respectively) to avoid a trackway to the north and west.

5.3.2. Excavation revealed a moderately deep ploughsoil (300) overlying a thin subsoil (301) which in turn sealed the natural geology (302), a mid yellow/brown silt/clay containing a high proportion of small to medium angular and sub angular flints.

5.3.3. A number of features cut through the upper surface of this deposit were investigated in order to determine whether they were archaeological or natural in origin. A number of parallel features investigated in the eastern end of the eastern arm were identified as geological in origin. A feature on a similar alignment close to the centre of the trench on the eastern arm was excavated and recorded (310). The irregularity of this feature, and in particular the base, and the sterility of the fill suggests that this represents the line of a linear natural feature, probably a hedgerow. No anthropogenic finds were recovered from the only fill, layer 311.

5.3.4. Two archaeological features were excavated in the southern arm of the trench, whilst further investigation also identified a tree throw and

9

further linear geological anomalies. The archaeological features excavated comprised an undated posthole (305) containing two fills (a primary fill – 306/307 - and a secondary fill, layer 308.

5.3.5. To the south of this posthole lay a shallow gully, aligned roughly north east to south west – gully 303. This had regular moderately concave sides, and an irregular concave base. It contained a single fill (304),the finds from which comprised a small number of sherds of Roman pottery.

6. FINDS

6.1.1. The evaluation produced a very small quantity of finds, all ceramic, which are quantified by material type and by context in Table 1.

6.1.2. Pottery constitutes the only closely datable material found; the nine sherds recovered are all of Romano-British date. All are undiagnostic coarsewares (including Black Burnished ware from south Dorset) and cannot be dated more closely within the Romano-British period.

6.1.3. The single piece of ceramic building material (CBM) recovered is in a coarse, irregular fabric; although undiagnostic, this is likely also to be of Romano-British date, and thickness indicates that it derives from brick rather than tile.

6.1.4. The fired clay is undiagnostic but is likely to be of structural origin; its date is unknown.

Table 1: All finds by context (number / weight in grammes)

Context CBM Fired Clay Pottery 204 7/206 2/11206 1/119209 9/70304 7/43

TOTAL 1/119 16/276 9/54

7. ENVIRONMENTAL REMAINS

7.1. Introduction

Environmental samples taken7.1.1. A single bulk sample was taken from a charcoal rich layer at the base

of a small oven or hearth feature 213 (212) of Roman date. The sample was processed for the recovery and assessment of charred plant remains and charcoals in order to inform on the archaeological potential during evaluation of the Site.

10

7.2. Charred Plant Remains

7.2.1. The bulk sample was processed by standard flotation methods; the flot retained on a 0.5 mm mesh, residues fractionated into 5.6 mm, 2mm and 1mm fractions and dried. The coarse fractions (>5.6 mm) were sorted, weighed and discarded. The flot was scanned under a x10 – x40 stereo-binocular microscope and the presence of charred remains quantified (Table 2) to record the preservation and nature of the charred plant and wood charcoal remains. Preliminary identifications of dominant or important taxa are noted below, following the nomenclature of Stace (1997).

7.2.2. The flots was very large with very few roots within it. Charred material was well/poorly preserved/comprised varying degrees of preservation.

7.2.3. No cereal remains were recovered from the feature and the only other charred plant remains were a single stone of hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and possible twig/thorn base.

7.3. Wood Charcoal

7.3.1. A large amount of wood charcoal was present in the flot. A number of the fragments could be seen to be ring-porous and therefore quite probably of oak (Quercus sp.). A great many of the larger fragments could also be seen to come from roundwood/branch material ranging from 2 to 8cm diameter and it would seem probable most if not all of the charcoal in the flot came from such sources.

7.3.2. The assemblage might be seen as potentially deriving from managed woodland. While such material could potentially be seen as Iron Age in date it might be seen as more typical of Roman or later when roundwood charcoal from probable managed woodland more frequently appears in mainland charred assemblages than it does in earlier periods.

8. DISCUSSION

8.1.1. The evaluation trenches excavated on the proposed wind turbine locations identified a small number of archaeological features in addition to numerous geological anomalies and natural features.

8.1.2. The westernmost trench, Trench 1, contained no features associated with past human activity – the only non geological features were two undated tree throws. No anthropogenic material was recovered from this trench

8.1.3. The central trench, Trench 2, identified evidence for Roman activity, in the form of a shallow gully and an oven. Only small quantities of pottery were recovered, but fired clay and brick, along with the presence of the oven, point to some settlement in the vicinity. A third

11

archaeological feature, possible an ovoid posthole, could not be closely dated.

8.1.4. Assessment of an environmental sample taken from the charcoal rich lower fill of the oven established that the charcoal primarily derived from roundwood or branch material, probably from managed woodland.

8.1.5. Further Roman material was recovered from the eastern trench (Trench 3), where a shallow gully contained a number of sherds of Roman pottery in its only fill. The only other archaeological feature from within this trench is a small undated posthole. A tree throw, probable hedge line and geological anomalies were also identified within this trench.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1.1. The evaluation undertaken on Cheverton Down identified the potential for the survival of Roman remains on the Site of the proposed wind turbines. No traces of any prehistoric activity were recorded, despite the presence of a number of Bronze Age barrows in close proximity to the Site and numerous other prehistoric findspots in the area. .

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY

CGMS 2009, Specification for an Archaeological Evaluation, Cheverton Down Wind Farm, Isle of Wight. Unpublished client report.

Stace, C, 1997, New flora of the British Isles (2nd edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Stratascan, 2008. Geophysical Survey Report, Cheverton Down, Isle of Wight/ Unpublished client report J2531

12

Appendix 1: Trench Summaries

Trial Trench No. 1 NGR NS

443734,084149 443733.084100

EW

443759, 084125 443708, 084125

Length (m) Width (m) Height Above Ordnance Datum (m) (At Ground Level)

Max. Depth (m) (Below Ground Level)

N-S 49.30m E-W 50.20m

1.50 NS

182.44 185.77

EW

184.91 183.53

0.78m

Context No. Soil Description Depth (m) (B.G.L)

100 Topsoil. A very dark brown silty clay loam, containing 2% small and medium (<0.08m) angular to sub-rounded flints. Very humic, quite loose, much bioturbation. Relatively clear horizon with subsoil.

0 – 0.26

101 Dark grey brown silty clay, containing 1% small (<0.04m) angular to sub-rounded flints. Very humic, quite loose, moderate bioturbation. Clear horizon with subsoil.

0.26 – 0.35

102 Natural geology. Yellow to dark brown silty clay containing frequent patches of flint gravel.

0.35 +

103 Upper fill of 105. A dark greyish brown silt clay containing very occasional small and medium angular flint gravels.

0.31 – 0.41

104 Lower fill 0f 105. A yellowish brown silty clay confined to the eastern (deepest) area of tree throw 105

0.41 – 0.78

105 Undated tree throw – irregular in plan and in profile. Contains 103 and 104.

0.31 – 0.78

106 Only fill of 107. A dark greyish brown silty clay containing frequent small and medium flint fragments.

0.37 – 0.58

107 Undated tree throw – irregular in plan and in profile. Contains 106

0.37 – 0.58


444113,084259 444113.084209

EW

444138, 084217 444088, 084217



N-S 49.64m E-W 50.31m

1.50 NS

172.57 175.05

EW

173.61 175.20

0.68m


201 Topsoil. A dark brown silty clay loam, containing frequent small and medium angular flints nodules and decaying organic matter.

0 – 0.41

202 Colluvial subsoil. Dark yellowish brown silty clay containing moderate small and medium angular flints. Only visible in one area of the trench, where it fills a hollow in the natural.

0.25 – 0.45

203 Natural geology. Yellowish brown to yellow silty clay containing frequent small and medium angular flints.

0.45 +

204 Fill of gully 205. A yellowish brown silty clay containing occasional small to medium flints, poorly sorted.

0.38 – 0.72

205 Shallow gully, aligned roughly east-west 0.38 – 0.72 206 Upper fill of 213. Greyish brown silty clay containing

occasional small and medium angular flints. Some charcoal present.

0.40 – 0.57

207 Fill of 213. Dark greyish brown silty clay containing occasional small and medium angular flints. A high proportion of charcoal present.

0.57 – 0.61

208 Fill of 213. Greyish brown silty clay containing occasional 0.61 – 0.68

13

small and medium angular flints. Frequent charcoal flecks 209 Fill of 213. A thin layer of reddish brown clay. Possibly

collapse of superstructure. 0.48 – 0.51

210 Fill of 213. Greyish brown silty clay containing flecks of charcoal.

0.51 – 0.54

211 Fill of 213. Brownish yellow clay. Possible floor of a later phase of the oven.

0.54 – 0.57

212 Fill of 213. Very dark greyish brown silty clay containing a very high proportion of charcoal. Probably represents an in situ burnt deposit.

0.57 – 0.68

213 ‘Keyhole’ shaped but of oven. 0.40 – 0.68 214 Fill of 215. Yellowish-brown silty clay containing occasional

small and medium angular flints. 0.39 – 0.53

215 Small ovoid pit, possibly a posthole. Undated. 0.39 – 0.53


444508,084312 444507.084265

EW

444541, 084304 444496, 084303



N-S 45.70m E-W 46.70m

1.50 NS

158.47 163.20

EW

160.77 158.70

0.82m


300 Topsoil. A mid brown silty clay, containing 2% small and medium (<0.10m) angular to sub-angular flints. Much bioturbation. Quite diffuse interface with subsoil.

0 – 0.21

301 Dark brown silty clay, containing 1% small and medium (<0.07m) sub angular flints. Significantly less bioturbation. Clear horizon with natural.

0.21 – 0.48

302 Natural geology. Mid yellowish brown silty clay containing very frequent small and medium angular to rounded flints, poorly sorted. Virtually no bioturbation..

0.48 +

303 Cut of shallow gully, aligned roughly north east to south west. 0.45 – 0.63 304 Only fill of 303. Mid brown silty clay containing moderate

amounts of small and medium rounded to angular flints 0.45 – 0.63

305 Possible posthole 0.43 – 0.73 306 Primary fill of 305. Found on the opposite side of the

intervention to 307, but probably the same deposit. A pale greyish brown silty clay containing moderate small and medium sub angular flints

0.54- 0.73

307 Primary fill of 305. Found on the opposite side of the intervention to 306, but probably the same deposit. A pale greyish brown silty clay containing moderate small and medium sub angular flints

0.54- 0.73

308 Upper fill of 305. A dark greyish brown silty clay containing common small and medium rounded to angular flints. Common charcoal inclusions.

0.43- 0.73

309 A localised subsoil, comprising a pale greyish brown silty clay, containing occasional small and medium rounded to angular flints. Poorly sorted, quite loose.

0.21 – 0.46

310 Cut of linear natural feature, possibly a hedgerow. 0.46 – 0.82 311 Fill of 310. A bright yellowish brown silty clay containing

moderate small and medium rounded to angular flints. 0.46 – 0.82

14

��

��

��

�� !"��#�$��%��& ''�(��)�� *�&�� +��+�,��-+�.�"��#/�0(1�

�(��

��2

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� �� !! "!�#� $�%� �� !! "" &�! �'(�)��%��*��*�� %��*��*��

� +'�� " �� ,��'�� &� ��'�� -� .�� /�'��' �� 01�� !� 2&" �2� $�%� �!� 2&" �22 ��'��'3�'(�)��%��*��*�� %��*��*��

��

Cheverton Down Wind Farm, Shorwell, Isle of Wight

Documents

Transcript of Cheverton Down Wind Farm, Shorwell, Isle of Wight